Changing paradigm for sewage -from treatment to recyclefrom treatment to recycle

P f A B G tProf. A.B. GuptaProfessor, Department of Civil Engineering,Malaviya National Institute of TechnologyMalaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur

Some issues discussed in the morning

• Sewage- drinking water supplySewage drinking water supply relationship (quantitative mass balance versus quality implications)versus quality implications)

• Create market for the treated sewage? Agriculture versus industryAgriculture versus industry

• Modular development of STPs (what h d t d i ? B k khappens due to overdesign? Bangkok, Bosch, JK Tyres Kankroli…)

• Design, trouble shooting and augmentation modules

Some issues discussed in the morning

• Minimizing the discharge (Aurobindo andMinimizing the discharge (Aurobindo and Gargi hostels of MNIT Jaipur)

• Decentralized versus centralized systems• Decentralized versus centralized systems• Energy aspects in STPs – how much to

?conserve?• Wetlands - their applications and

limitations• New areas for R&D

Deep shaft processDeep shaft process

•It is a Process having a mechanism of great depth•It is a Process having a mechanism of great depth aeration (depth of 40 to 150 m as an aeration tank) and it is practiced where land is in short supply.

•It can treat the waste water at higher rate.

ff ff•It is also known as a space efficient and energy efficient biological process.

Disposal and recycle norms…Parameter Disposal

normsRecycle norms

Low end reuse High end reuse

TSS 100 < 5 < 1 ntu

BOD 100 < 10 Nil

COD 250 < 50 Nil

SDI No limit No limit < 3SDI No limit No limit 3

TKN 100 No limit < 1

T N No limit No limit < 5T- N No limit No limit < 5

T- P 5 No limit < 1

Bacteria No limit No limit Nil6

…Cost Benefit Analysis

1. Benefit vs Additional cost

2. Payback of Additional cost

3. Life cycle analysis

7

RBC at MNITRBC at MNIT

Rotating Media Bio Reactor

Filters

Powder coatedBody

PLC Panel

Screened Influent Baffle Wall DecanterSAS P

SBRScreened Influent

Mixers Pumps

Pre-react Chamber Effluent DischargeDiffusers

11Main-react

Chamber

Diffusers

ITT Corporation India Pvt.Ltd.

SBR Basin EquipmentDissolved

OxygenUltrasonic

Level Float Switch

PenstockM

Decanter

Penstock

EffluentInfluentFrom

Inlet Works

M

To SAS SAS Pump

M Air FlowAir Inlet Valve

MStorage

S

Grid 2Grid 1 Grid 3Air Purge

Blowers

12

MBRMBRMBRMBR

it is a very high efficiency process ith tl t lit f d twith outlet quality as feed to

Reverse Osmosis ….

13

MBR System Schematics

AIR

INLET

14

Outlet quality (all units in ppm)

Srno Parameter

SBR MBR ASP

1. BOD 10 5 30

2. COD 50 25 250 – 3002. COD 50 25 250 300

3. TSS 10 < 0.5 100

4. TN <5 <5 No change

5 TP <1 <1 No change5. TP <1 <1 No change

5. SDI - <3 -

15

Energy considerationsEnergy considerations• ASP STP Jaipur North- 27 MLD- 0.89 kWh/ kg of BOD (ref_ MNIT)• ASP STP Jaipur South- 62.5 MLD- 0.50 kWh/ kg of BOD (ref_

MNIT)• ASP Pune – 17 MLD ASP- 1.75, TF- 0.70 kWh/ kg of BOD (ref , g ( _

MNIT)Ref-Compendium..IIT Kanpur prepared for NRCD- MOEF 2009• Conventional ASP based STPs under YAP- Allahabd 60-80Conventional ASP based STPs under YAP- Allahabd 60-80

MLD- 180-225 KWH/MLD• TF under YAP- 180 KWH/MLD • UASB under YAP 10 15 KWH/MLD• UASB under YAP- 10-15 KWH/MLD• Facultative aerated lagoon under YAP 18 KWH/MLD How to save and how much??How much energy can be generated?

Decentralized Treatment SystemsWHERE to consider (according to USEPA)?WHERE to consider (according to USEPA)?

• Where the operation and management of existing onsite systems must be improvedmust be improved

• Where the community or facility is remote from existing sewers

• Where localized water reuse opportunities are availablepp

• Where fresh water for domestic supply is in short supply

• Where existing wastewater treatment plant capacity is limited and fi i i t il il bl f ifinancing is not easily available for expansion

• Where, for environmental reasons, the quantity of effluent discharged to the environment must be limited

• Where the expansion of the existing wastewater conveyance from treatment facilities would involve unnecessary disruption to the community

• Where specific wastewater constituents are of environmental concern.

The case study of JaipurThe case study of Jaipur

• Two scenarios consideredTwo scenarios considered– First, centralized treatment at STP Delawas

and supply treated sewage through a pipelineand supply treated sewage through a pipeline to the major green belts- data derived mainly from PHED report

– Second, isolated RBCs for the desired capacities to be constructed at individual locations with and without automation

• Estimates made for a period of 10 years

Economic Justification of D t li d S tDecentralized System

Table‐1: Demand Estimates and No. of Proposed PlantsS.No. AREA Tentative 

Demand in MLDNo. of Plants

Demand in MLD1 MLD 0.5 MLD

Zone I1 Ram Niwas Bagh 1.2 1 12 Central Park  1 33 Polo Ground1.0/ Golf Course 0.45 Central Park plant may Cater4 SMS Stadium 0.65 Jawahar Nagar 1.56 1 16 Jawahar Nagar Forest Area 5 57 Amrita Devi Udyan 3 38 University Campus 1 19 Saras Sankul  0.3 110 MNIT  0.7 1 111 OTS 0.3 112 Smrity Van 0.3 OTS Plant may cater13 Malviya Nagar sector 1 0.7 213 Malviya Nagar sector 1 0.7 214 Malviya Nagar Ind. Area 0.9515 Malviya Nagar sector 9 0.716 Jawahar Circle 0.5517 Jagatpura 5 517 Jagatpura 5 518 Pratap Nagar 3.85 4

SUBTOTAL 27.16 26 4

Table-1: Demand Estimates and No. of Proposed Plants

S.No. AREA Tentative Demand in MLD

No. of Plants

1 MLD 0.5 MLD

Zone II 

1 Inter State Bus Terminus 0.25 1

2 Mansarovar (Sec 1 to 6) 1 1

3 Mansarover Sector SFS &Sec 7‐12 1.2 1 1

4 Mansarover Industrial Area 1.2 1 14 Mansarover Industrial Area 1.2 1 1

SUBTOTAL 3.65 3 3

Zone III

1 Sitapura Ind. Area 2 2

2 Tonk Road 8 8

SUBTOTAL 10 10 0

Zone IV

1 Sez 22.5 23

2 Bagru Industrial Area 5 5

3 Ajmer Road Colonioes 5 5

SUBTOTAL 32.5 33 0

Total No. of Plants 72 7Total Capacity 73.3 72 3.5

Unit Costs for various options

Plant Size Capital Cost Power Cost for 10 Yrs

10 Yrs O & M Cost

No. of Proposed Units

Treatment System without Tertiary Treatment

1 MLD 7,875,000 3,966,564 3,212,394 72

0.5 MLD 6,900,000 1,983,282 3,121,833 7

Treatment System with Tertiary Treatment

1 MLD 8,400,000 5,949,846 3,212,394 72

0.5 MLD 7,485,000 2,974,923 3,121,833 7

Treatment System with Fully Automatic Plant

1 MLD 8,925,000 5,949,846 586,130 72

0 5 MLD 8 070 000 2 974 923 495 569 7y 0.5 MLD 8,070,000 2,974,923 495,569 7

Total Cost EstimatesNo. of Proposed  Capital Cost Power Cost  10 Yrs O & M Total

Units for 10 Yrs Cost

Without Tertiary Treatment 72 567,000,000 285,592,622 231,292,350 1,083,884,972

7 48,300,000 13,882,975 21,852,830 84,035,805

615,300,000 299,475,596 253,145,181 1,167,920,777

With Tertiary Treatment 72 604 800 000 428 388 933 231 292 350 1 264 481 283With Tertiary Treatment 72 604,800,000 428,388,933 231,292,350 1,264,481,283

7 52,395,000 20,824,462 21,852,830 95,072,292

657,195,000 449,213,395 253,145,181 1,359,553,575

Fully Automatic Plant 72 642,600,000 428,388,933 42,201,345 1,113,190,278

7 56,490,000 20,824,462 3,468,983 80,783,445

699,090,000 449,213,395 45,670,328 1,193,973,722

Centralized System 1,050,000,000  989,600,000 236,400,000 2,276,000,000

AdvantagesAdvantages• Cost of additional Sewerage system,

Transport of sewage and its pumping reducedreduced

• In the earlier scenario contamination due to dye wastes made it difficult to treat sewagey g

• High end technology introduced at lesser cost and possibility for modular developmentRecharging the local water table• Recharging the local water table

• Disposal on greens gives further polish thus safe for GW recharge (Natural treatment g (system introduced)

Technologies for the Treatment of Wastewateran analysisan analysis…

Each situation is different and needs to be given dual consideration different alternatives exist fordual consideration, different alternatives exist for each system from small scale households to large scale centralized one.

More attention to properly designed lower-cost, simpler to operate processes as well as tosimpler to operate processes as well as to decentralized technologies. These should be adopted depending on the influent wastewater and on the desired effluent qualityon the desired effluent quality.

Also, whenever feasible, a reuse component pshould be included for all new wastewater treatment projects

Biological Nitrogen removalBiological Nitrogen removal

Advances in Biological N- removalAdvances in Biological N removal• Application of Thiosphaera pantotropha, a

heterotrophic nitrifier and aerobic denitrifier, in mixed bacterial cultures for simultaneous carbon removalbacterial cultures for simultaneous carbon removal, nitrification and denitrification

• Two important points to note about TP• i) The specific nitrifying activity of TP is 10 – 103• i) The specific nitrifying activity of TP is 10 – 10

times lower than that of autotrophs much higher compared to those of other het nitrifiers (103 - 104

times lower). )• Growth of TP as heterotroph is much higher than that

for the autotrophs (the μmax for Nitrosomonas europea 0.03 - 0.05 h-1, that of TP approx 0.4 h-1)p pp )

• The aerobic denitrification rates were much higher than het nitrification rates of TP- extra capacity to take nitrate or nitrite coming from other routes

LAYOUT OF BRAHMPURI WETLAND

Inferences on wetland studyU t t d tl d i f i b tt th th t t dUnvegetated wetland is performing better than the vegetated

ones for organics removal (??)

Only N- removal was better in vegetated wetlands suggesting

that removal of nitrogen is mostly by plant uptake.g y y p p

Plant litter is contributing back to phosphorous in vegetated

tl d i i t dl hi h h h t tl twetlands giving unexpectedly higher phosphorous at outlet.

Though the wetland systems were highly under-designed

as per design equations they performed satisfactorily -need

our own design equationsour own design equations.

Harvesting being easier compared to ponds..have future

ConclusionConclusion• The selected strategy needs to be developed gy p

through careful planning and detailing and may be public consultation.Th d t li d ti h d fi it d• The decentralized option has a definite edge over the centralized option economically, and the flexibility of modular development canthe flexibility of modular development can always allow stage wise development and obtaining feedback to refine the system.

• The future is for the advanced technologies and the life cycle analysis of the treatment options